Michael J. Hickey v. Sinclair Refining Company
This text of 230 F.2d 175 (Michael J. Hickey v. Sinclair Refining Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
This is an appeal from a decision by the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denying the appellant recovery for maintenance and cure. We do not take issue with the legal points which the appellant has raised. On his behalf his counsel has filed a learned brief setting out the law pertaining to maintenance and cure. But the judgment of the district court is to be affirmed because of specific findings *176 of fact made at the conclusion of the trial. The judge disbelieved the appellant and his brother who was a witness for him. The judge found as a fact that when appellant returned to work he was physically capable of doing so. Bearing in mind the rule of McAllister v. United States, 1954, 348 U.S. 19, 75 S.Ct. 6, 99 L.Ed. 20, that the findings in an admiralty suit are not to be disregarded unless clearly erroneous, we can do nothing but affirm.
The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
230 F.2d 175, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 4766, 1956 A.M.C. 382, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-j-hickey-v-sinclair-refining-company-ca3-1956.